Dataset Information

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen modality on their lives. METHODS:A 39-question survey was developed in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to assess perceptions of patients on either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or in-center hemodialysis (HD). The survey was disseminated to participants in the large US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal DOPPS (PDOPPS). Survey responses were compared between PD and in-center HD patients using descriptive statistics, adjusted logistic generalized estimating equation models, and linear mixed regression models. RESULTS:Six hundred fourteen PD and 1346 in-center HD participants responded. Compared with in-center HD participants, PD participants more frequently reported that they were engaged in the decision-making process, were provided enough information, understood differences between dialysis modalities, and felt satisfied with their modality choice. PD participants also reported more frequently than in-center HD participants that partners or spouses (79% vs. 70%), physician assistants (80% vs. 66%), and nursing staff (78% vs. 60%) had at least some involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Over 35% of PD and in-center HD participants did not know another dialysis patient at the time of their modality decision and over 60% did not know the disadvantages of their modality type. Participants using either dialysis modality perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on their lives. CONCLUSIONS:PD participants were more engaged in the modality decision process compared to in-center HD participants. For both modalities, there is room for improvement in patient education and other support for patients choosing a dialysis modality.

SUBMITTER: Zee J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6206892 | biostudies-other | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients.

Zee Jarcy J Zhao Junhui J Subramanian Lalita L Perry Erica E Bryant Nicole N McCall Margie M Restovic Yanko Y Torres Delma D Robinson Bruce M BM Pisoni Ronald L RL Tentori Francesca F

BMC nephrology 20181029 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen ...[more]

PMID: 30373558

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesAssisted peritoneal dialysis is a treatment option for individuals with barriers to self-care who wish to receive home dialysis, but previous research suggests that this treatment modality is associated with a higher rate of hospitalization. The objective of our study was to determine whether assisted peritoneal dialysis has a different rate of hospital days compared to in-center hemodialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study by linking a quality assurance dataset to administrative health data in Ontario, Canada. Subjects were accrued between January 1, 2004 and July 9, 2013. Individuals were grouped into assisted peritoneal dialysis (family or home care assisted) or in-center hemodialysis on the basis of their first outpatient dialysis modality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using a propensity score was used to create a sample in which the baseline covariates were well balanced.ResultsThe study included 872 patients in the in-center hemodialysis group and 203 patients in the assisted peritoneal dialysis group. Using an intention to treat approach, patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis had a similar hospitalization rate of 11.1 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 9.4 to 13.0) compared with 12.9 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 10.3 to 16.1) in the hemodialysis group (P=0.19). Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis were more likely to be hospitalized for dialysis-related reasons (admitted for 2.4 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 3.2] compared with 1.6 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.3] in the hemodialysis group; P=0.04). This difference was partly explained by more hospital days because of peritonitis. Modality switching was associated with high rates of hospital days per year.ConclusionsAssisted peritoneal dialysis was associated with similar rates of all-cause hospitalization compared with in-center hemodialysis. Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis who experienced peritonitis and technique failure had high rates of hospitalization.

Project description:Background and objectivesThere is conflicting evidence comparing peritonitis rates among patients treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) or automated peritoneal dialysis (APD). This study aims to clarify the relationship between peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality (APD versus CAPD) and the risk of developing PD-associated peritonitis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis study examined the association between PD modality (APD versus CAPD) and the risks, microbiology, and clinical outcomes of PD-associated peritonitis in 6959 incident Australian PD patients between October 1, 2003, and December 31, 2011, using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. Median follow-up time was 1.9 years.ResultsPatients receiving APD were younger (60 versus 64 years) and had fewer comorbidities. There was no association between PD modality and time to first peritonitis episode (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for APD versus CAPD, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.91 to 1.07; P=0.71). However, there was a lower hazard of developing Gram-positive peritonitis with APD than CAPD, which reached borderline significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.00; P=0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in the risk of hospitalizations (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.35; P=0.22), but there was a nonsignificant higher likelihood of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.88; P=0.11) at the time of the first episode of peritonitis for patients receiving APD. For all peritonitis episodes (including subsequent episodes of peritonitis), APD was associated with lower rates of culture-negative peritonitis (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94; P=0.002) and higher rates of gram-negative peritonitis (IRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.46; P=0.01).ConclusionsPD modality was not associated with a higher likelihood of developing peritonitis. However, APD was associated with a borderline reduction in the likelihood of a first episode of Gram-positive peritonitis compared with CAPD, and with lower rates of culture-negative peritonitis and higher rates of Gram-negative peritonitis. Peritonitis outcomes were comparable between both modalities.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients' knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making. METHOD:A mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS:The participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p?=?0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p?=?0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p?=?0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p?=?0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results. CONCLUSIONS:Although there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov ( NCT03868800 ). The study has been registered retrospectively.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients.MethodsIn this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups.ResultsOur study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate.ConclusionIn an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Vascular calcification is seen in most patients on dialysis and is strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality. Vascular calcification is promoted by phosphate, which generally reaches higher levels in hemodialysis than in peritoneal dialysis. However, whether vascular calcification develops less in peritoneal dialysis than in hemodialysis is currently unknown. Therefore, we compared coronary artery calcification (CAC), its progression, and calcification biomarkers between patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. METHODS:We measured CAC in 134 patients who had been treated exclusively with hemodialysis (n = 94) or peritoneal dialysis (n = 40) and were transplantation candidates. In 57 of them (34 on hemodialysis and 23 on peritoneal dialysis), we also measured CAC progression annually up to 3 years and the inactive species of desphospho-uncarboxylated matrix Gla protein (dp-ucMGP), fetuin-A, osteoprotegerin. We compared CAC cross-sectionally with Tobit regression. CAC progression was compared in 2 ways: with linear mixed models as the difference in square root transformed volume score per year (?CAC SQRV) and with Tobit mixed models. We adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS:In the cross-sectional cohort, CAC volume scores were 92 mm3 in hemodialysis and 492 mm3 in peritoneal dialysis (adjusted difference 436 mm3; 95% CI -47 to 919; p = 0.08). In the longitudinal cohort, peritoneal dialysis was associated with significantly more CAC progression defined as ?CAC SQRV (adjusted difference 1.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.31; p = 0.03), but not with Tobit mixed models (adjusted difference in CAC score increase per year 106 mm3; 95% CI -140 to 352; p = 0.40). Peritoneal dialysis was associated with higher osteoprotegerin (adjusted p = 0.02) but not with dp-ucMGP or fetuin-A. CONCLUSIONS:Peritoneal dialysis is not associated with less CAC or CAC progression than hemodialysis, and perhaps with even more progression. This indicates that vascular calcification does not develop less in peritoneal dialysis than in hemodialysis.

Dataset Information

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients.

Publications

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets